The Mustang Mach E is inevitably a polarizing subject,as the idea of a Mustang being anything other than a two door coupe/convertible is apparently heresy in the minds of many. But things might well have been different from the get-go: this four door sedan concept shows that Ford was seriously considering a wider line of Mustangs, presumably to replace the Falcon altogether.
That would have made quite a lot of sense, as the Falcon was getting old by this time, and Ford was reluctant to invest in a new one. As it turns out, they never quite did, just cutting down the 1966 Fairlane a bit to make a Falcon. That didn’t go over all that well either.
We’ll never know how close Ford came to putting this into production, but it’s interesting to speculate on how things would have turned out if they had. I’ll speculate that this was something of a fall-back plan, in case the Mustang didn’t catch on, as a way to amortize some of its body tooling. Ford’s target was some 100k units per year; that’s not a lot in terms of amortizing a new body.
I like it. Around that time I was getting out of a TR4 and into VW Beetles and then, my all time favorite, the VW Squarebacks. but I think this looks great. Another lost opportunity in my estimation is that Chevrolet never did some cleanup on Aisle 7 on the Chevette and made a Monza version as they did with the rather dumpy original Corvair.
The original Mustang was just a Falcon Sprint that triggered emotional responses by the millions. So, there was no reason to not consider expanding the line to include a sedan and a wagon. What makes a Mustang? Magic. Hard to capture and hard to recreate. Who would have expected that after 60 years, it would still be there? It is the last Ford sedan, if you don’t consider the new Escape a raised wagon, that is.
Iconic. But even icons aren’t recognized as icons right away. It took Jeep decades of differing designs before it was finally decided by Chrysler to leave it the hell alone and put the Jeep name on other vehicles not based on the CJ5. Icons are usually solo successes and are narrowly focused.
I see a lot of Maverick 4-door in the side-on view. Not really my cuppa; I really don’t like a beltline that sweeps up in the back door area, but aside from that I think this is a solid design.
Yes; I immediately saw Maverick also. The four-door Maverick filled the niche a four-door Mustang would have filled. I wonder if that was the intent?
Yep, looks a lot like the later Maverick. The Maverick was the original Mustang cheapened as much as possible. The Mustang was moved upmarket – bigger engines, wider, longer.
I’ve never understood why Ford would have a Pinto, a Maverick, a Mustang and a Thunderbird in the same showroom at the same time. It seemed like four versions of the same idea. There was no reason for a Thunderbird after the Mustang found success. If Ford wanted to combine the Mustang/T-Bird into one car, that would have been clearer to the market. Instead, Ford had a sloppy selling Mustang and Thunderbird for many years, instead of one solid luxury sports entry.
The Maverick sold very well while the Mustang bloated until 1974. I guess no one has a crystal ball.
The idea was to sell the hell out of the popular sporty two-door coupe concept by offering something in every size for every budget.
Same idea is at work at Ford today: Eco-Sport, Escape, Explorer, Expedition, Expedition XL.
No, I do get it.
The Pinto was the VW competition. Cheap.
The Maverick was more a traditional Ford, small, but a small sedan regardless if it had 2 or 4 doors
The Mustang was an affordable sport car. (not really, but close enough for a ton of buyers)
The T Bird was supposed to look sporty, but really was just a 2 door luxury car, way out of the price range of Mustang buyers. In a way it would have made more sense as a Mercury.
Just like what happened to the T-bird, it would get bigger and fatter to the point that no one cares.
Which is exactly what happened in 1971. I’m glad they never pursued a four-door Mustang – it would have taken away the magic.
With the sharp roofline and strong kickup, you can almost see it as a compact Lincoln. Add taillights to the fins, and it would be complete.
I don’t know for certain but it looks to have a noticable wheelbase stretch from the coupe that doesn’t flatter its proportions as well, plus the prominent door frames seem kinda low rent given the Mustangs hardtop image(My one dislike about foxbodies). It largely shares the same proportional problem mid 70s Torino 4 doors have, long hood, long mid section, short deck.
The biggest what if I think would be how the Mustang would be percieved today, the original as-produced line of them is widely known as a youthful car, regardless of actual buyer ages, but if there were a bunch of 4 door versions muddying the waters would that have just made the Mustang been another name that came and went in Ford’s compact segment? I strongly suspect so given the perception of the Thunderbird post-1967 and Mercury Cougar post-1977. On the other hand both of those cars had the baggage of knowing he greatness that preceded them so maybe if the Mustang had this body from or near the start it would be a different story. But, its still a particularly dumpy looking bodystyle in a line where Coupes, convertibles and fastbacks were all genuine lookers.
The fallback theory makes a lot of sense.
The framed side window glass is probably the biggest mood-killer for me.
How about the dog dish hub caps? It’s weird that they used them on a presentation mockup.
The whole thing would have been a mistake anyway, but yes, it should have been a hardtop like the real Mustangs, and with the same rounded not squared off rear side window opening too. Then it would have been a matter of diluting the image vs adding buyers who like four doors and reasonable back seat leg room.
Oh wait – I know. Make the C post sail panel wider/rear side window shorter so it looks more like a coupe. That’s what they did with the 1961 Lincoln to more closely recall the Mark II. This necessitated the suicide rear doors, not just style. You would have had to crawl out of the back seat of those if they had normal back doors. The Lincoln approach would have been nixed based on the cost on this low priced vehicle though. A Cougar like that would have been cool though.
The dog dishes are there on purpose: this would have essentially been the replacement of the Falcon sedan. The Mustang would have become Ford’s compact line of cars.
Which makes sense, as the 1966+ Falcon only came as a unique coupe and sedan; the wagons were just Fairlanes with a Falcon front clip.
The left side of the car probably had nice wheel covers and maybe some chrome.
Or put some of the sail panel on the door, as on the 4 door TBird.
Heck, if Ford’s not studying that one NOW they should be.
Haha, well there you go, a product planner had the Mach-E conceptualized in a drawer somewhere from the beginning, finally in 2021 it saw the light of day and the masses could rejoice!. If the Mustang was a 4-door and the Mach-E was a coupe there’d be the same teeth-gnashing now…it’s a car, 95percent of them will be crushed in two decades, old and new alike, and replaced by the new hotness, whatever that may be. It’s probably in some Ford guy’s bottom drawer as we write. Maybe John Ali can do a little after-hours snooping…
The new hotnesses historically go by different names from the old hotnesses. Ford was at a time the Mustang was conceived a master at christening cars great names – Mustang, Cougar, Bronco – if Ford were truly bold they could do it again, and not with something inane like fucilia or something inoffensively meaningless like that to a focus group, if the Mach E is so good it should stand on its own. Heck when we all thought it was just going to be called “Ford Mach E” without nary a horse badge to be found that would have been more acceptable.
By the logic of the Mustang Mach E a new rap group should call themselves the Beatles or a Rom Coms call itself The Godfather “for buzz”. Hey, film and music are disposable too, all that matters was was it profitable at the time they were produced, and what have they done for me lately? Mercifully copywrite protects that sort of lunacy from happening in most cases, but of course there are still businesspeople who own the properties saying “Can somebody please jam these old songs into insurance and pharmaceutical commercials, and for the love of god make this movie a reboot franchise starring a multicultural cast to play La Cosa Nostra members!” 😝
I don’t agree at all. If the Mustang stayed as a 2 door sporty car in a few years it would be dead.
I’m a Mustang guy and my Mach-E is great. I have a 65 convertible to go with it.
Sometimes dead is better
amen!
It looks…oddly more like a taxicab than a sports car this way.
It’s the dog dishes. I don’t think Mustangs ever came with less than full wheel covers.
You all know for my preference for two door cars, but I have no problem with it.
I’d buy this one in a heartbeat if Ford made it, especially in that color:
+1
Nice fusion! lol
Why not – worked well for BMW with 4 series and 6 series Grand Coupe format?
And maybe the Porcshe Taycan too, for a different reason
Studebaker should have gone down this road earlier, either with a 4-door GT Hawk or the Avanti Touring Sedan. In some sense the Avanti was competing not against the Corvette, which was a 2-seater, but against Studebaker’s own GT Hawk. A 4-door GT Hawk would have maybe actually sold some units, along with the Avanti.
IF Ford had done this, it might have changed America’s taste in sedans for the better, moved them more towards European conceptions of size and space utilization, and maybe would have then saved the American carmakers from the worst of 1970’s excess and the later malaise.
Seems like it would have done well south of the border and in Australia.
In the mid ‘60’s to the mid ‘70’s 4 door cars were considered family dullsville. Even the Maverick, which was the true Falcon successor, was offered solely as a 2 door upon introduction. Ford did well to keep the Mustang a coupe, which served the model well for over 50 years. Everyone in the world knew the Mustang was a sporty American coupe. I’m perplexed why Ford chose to change this with the current Mach E.
I think this is a great point, CPJ. I remember reading (probably here on CC) that for the ’65 or ’66 model year, the 2-door model of Chevy’s Impala actually outsold the 4-doors. That’s a hard thing to even fathom now in 2021, when 2-door vehicles are largely limited to sports cars and a few specialty coupes. Or take today’s Jeep Wrangler, for example: since the introduction of the big 4-door version, seems that’s all I ever see on the streets these days, with the traditional 2-door model now a rare sight indeed. Times they have a-changed.
If you are under a certain age, you don’t know the car culture of the 50s thru the 80s at least and certain things of the past will mystify you. Short version: only two doors were “cool”. Although practicality made four doors sell, everyone who cared wished they had the two door. Wagons were minivans.
From a non-US POV it could have worked pretty well in place of the real-life 3rd gen Ford Falcon.
What makes things even more fascinating would be how the above fits into claims Ford had more ambitious plans to develop a common “World Car”-esque platform for what would become the 3rd gen US Ford Falcon,2nd gen Aussie Ford Falcon XR (or Ford Fairlane in place of the ZA) and the UK Ford Zodiac Mark IV / Ford Zephyr Mark IV.
That would in turn have led to the alternate Internationalized Mustang-esque 3rd gen Ford Falcon and regular Mustang being replaced by a something akin to the European Ford Granada platform (together with the alternate Mustang II reminiscent of the Maverick-derived Mustang II proposal).
So Ford HQ would have no need to either develop the North American Granada nor consider importing the European Ford Granada, with the successor ideally being a Transatlantic merger of the Fox and Sierra/Scorpio platforms prior to both being replaced by the CDW27 and DEW98 platforms respectively.
As a 4 door coupe it looks good. I think the magic proportions of the real 2 door mustang make the perception of this version better than it would be in reality.
Yes I agree the 61 Lincoln solved the door issues.
My parents owned a 1965 4-door Chevy Nova, so I suspect a 4-door version of the 1965 Mustang wouldn’t be that outrageous of production car…
Short and deep at the back, long at the front. It’s not so unlike our Ford Zodiac Mk.4.
https://www.for-sale.co.uk/sh-img/3757829411_8b51ffa7b4_zodiac%2Bmk4.jpg
Then again there is a connection – Philip T. Clark.
https://fordeurope.blogspot.com/2018/12/unmistakably-capri.html
Ha! I logged in to say just that. From that rear 3-quarter it definitely looks like it influenced the Mk4 Z-cars, the styling of which I never liked or understood. I guess those proportions were bouncing around Ford’s various styling departments at the time.
My first thought too – very Zephyr/Zodiac Mk 4 with a hip line kick
Proportions seem like they’d be helped a lot by a shorter hood/dash-to-axle and wider greenhouse/slimmer C-pillars. What sort of effect that would’ve carried onto the coupes is debatable – imo the original Mustang notchback would’nt have suffered too much from and might even have been improved by being locked into the carryover ’60 Falcon dash-to-axle as long as it could have a proportionally shorter wheelbase with the actual production car’s body dimensions from the firewall back.
If it had to share the sedan’s roof pressing, slimming down the C-pillars to help the 4-door’s proportions would’ve turned the notchback coupe into a 2-door sedan itself which would’ve only work if they’d gone with *radically* slim C-pillars, abandoning the T-bird look and going for what the Italians were starting to do, and accepting that the 4-door would be a 6-window, which would make it look like a Chrysler…
Dodge did it with the Charger, what, 4, 5 decades later? Dodge charger is one of my favorite present day cars.
Me too, but its lines are much more rakish, and since the old Chargers we know and love don’t have a set back passenger compartment like the Mustang adding a rakish roofline to a 4 door isn’t much different in profile than a 2 door intermediate coupe of yore(though I still refuse to call it a coupe, damnit!)
The current Charger started off kind of frumpy (to me) but it’s subsequent restyles made it into a great looking car. The greenhouse actually strongly resembles the one on the 1999 concept car
This would have cannibalized sales of the four door Falcon and Fairlane.
Now its the mustang machE.
It appears that the driver’s side featured two door sedan styling (judging from the B pillar). Interesting…and good that it never made production!
Had this made it to production I don’t think the Mustang would still be with us today.
By being allowed to be solely a 2-door (whether in sedan, convertible, hardtop or hatchback guise) the Mustang was allowed to develop and retain its purpose as a sports car and image leader. I’m not saying it always deserved that image, but it still developed worldwide positive brand recognition.
If the Mustang name had been diluted to include 4-door sedans, and possibly then wagons, I think it would have become another Torino. Yes the Torino had sporty models and gained image from Starsky & Hutch, but it had virtually no worldwide brand recognition, and no real reason to gain any being just another model line which happened to include a sporty version or two.
What that says about the Mach E I’m not sure, but I do think both the Mustang and Mach E are strong enough models to stand on their own. Nether needs or needed the other. Yes Ford gained instant brand recognition (that phrase again!) by calling it the Mustang Mach E, but it’s a good enough product that it could have forged new ground with a unique name. And without diluting the Mustang image and purpose.
Nobody has yet mentioned the Corvair. Ford surely knew by January of 1963 that Chevrolet was investing in a new Corvair and that the 4 door was going to remain in the lineup. History tells us that the 65 Corvair 4 door hardtop was a very attractive car, and also a very slow seller. The 4 door was very off-mission for what the Corvair had become by 1965. In fact, I wonder if the existence of the 4 door took Chevy’s (and the public’s) eye off of what the Corvair should have been (and actually was) by that time. My take is that the same thing would have happened had a 4 door Mustang been part of the lineup.
MotorTrend kept showing renderings of 2nd gen Camaro wagons for years, but I don’t recall any Mustang ones. Wouldn’t that have been cheaper than stretching the wheelbase for a 4 door?
I think the four-door would look better without the side scoops.
A 2dr wagon Mustang would have been great.
The statean domestic market was pretty much diverse in 1960s to simply redirect the products. This is something related to the marketing and here’s my opinion on the idea:
There was this OSAP idea (one-size-all-purposes) with compact, medium and large cars but to make the Mustang a sedan it would’ve implied in cancelling the Falcon entirely by 1966 and expanding the internal family of the product. The Mustang would’ve had a vast option of engines with 4, 6 and 8 cylinders, being wagon, convertible, pickup, panel van, coupe and sedan.
Also, the Maverick in 1970 seemed to be the perfect Mustang that never came back to its origins. The generation I consider the “second” (69-73) grew too much and it wans’t appealing and sporty as the smaller old ones. Against Camaro, Javelin and Barracuda it was a different tale under a different POV. The pony luxury car became a smaller niche of the large personal luxury along the 1970s.
In reply to Ed Hadley, it is standard industry practice to construct a mock-up with two different sides, such as here. Cheaper and faster to prepare, plus one only sees one side at a time.
In reply to Ralph L, there was a Mustang two-door wagon prototype. Think Eurooean sport estates such as Reliant Scimitar or Volvo 1800. I thought it was a very good-looking car.